Karnataka High Court
M Hanumantha vs The Chief Traffic Manager on 4 June, 2013
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
W.P.NO.1573/2012(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
M HANUMANTHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O MUNIYAPPA
R/AT NO 132/3,PAPAIAH LAYOUT
KASTURINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 043 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAKSHMAN RAO, ADV.,)
AND
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
B.M T C ,K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H R RENUKA, ADV.,) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID.NO.201/06, OLD.NO.107/04, DT.19.8.11 VIDE ANN-C ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2
PC:
This writ petition is directed against the award dated 19th August 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer-I, First Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.201/2006, whereby, a dispute filed by the petitioner, under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "Act") has been dismissed. In the dispute, the petitioner raised challenge to the order of his dismissal, and prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in 1992. He was dismissed from service on the allegation that he secured job by producing false and fabricated transfer certificate purportedly issued by the Headmaster of Government Boys Primary School, Valepura, Bangalore South. There is no dispute that he was dismissed from service after following due procedure and that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper. Therefore, I am not making further reference to the facts in detail.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not make any submission in respect of the procedure that was followed for conducting the enquiry and made submissions only on facts of the case and relied upon an unreported decision dated 19th November 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1273/209 in V.Krishna vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. On facts, the only submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the disciplinary authority could not and did not produce the entire school record pertaining to the petitioner, which was necessary in view of the admission on the part of the school authorities that some record for the year 1968-69 is missing. He submitted, the labour Court ought to have given benefit of the admission to the petitioner and allowed the dispute filed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims that he was a student of Government Boys Primary School, Valepura, Bangalore South and that a Transfer Certificate (for short "T.C.") produced by him for securing employment is genuine. The petitioner at the 4 time of his appointment had produced TC 13/88-89 (Admission No.15/68-69) said to have been issued by that school. The respondent conducted a detailed enquiry with regard to genuineness of the said T.C. and it was found that he was not at all a student of the said school and that the T.C. produced by him is fake/bogus.
5. The respondent in support of their case against the petitioner examined Sri N.S.Shvarajegwoda, Divisional Security Inspector. He was assigned a responsibility of visiting the said school to verify the record and genuineness of the T.C.. Accordingly, he visited the school and found that in 1968-69 only 8 students were admitted in the said school. Therefore, according to the respondents, the question of admitting the petitioner at serial No.15 did not arise. In the cross-examination he stated that the T.C. produced by the petitioner did not contain a seal of the said school. He specifically stated that the headmaster of the school informed him that the seal on the said T.C. is not that of the said school and that the signature of Principal appearing on the T.C. was also not of any headmasters 5 who worked in the said school. The respondents examined the headmaster of the said school. She produced admission register and deposed that in 1968-69 only 8 students were admitted and the name of petitioner does not appear in the list of 8 students. She corroborates the evidence of Sri N.S.Shvarajegwoda. In the Cross-examination, she denied that the T.C. was issued by their school. Since the T.C. was not issued by her school and according to the school authorities, it was a fake and bogus document, obviously, in the cross-examination, she could not and did not identify the signature as that of the Headmaster of their school in 1968-69. In so far as, Admission No.15 is concerned, it appears that the said number was also checked for the year 1969-70 and it was found that it was of one C.K.Manjula Devi. As a matter of fact, it was not necessary for the witness to state anything about Admission No.15 for the year 1969-70 since in the present case they were concerned with Admission No.15 for the year 1968-69. When the petitioner cross-examined the witness he could not or did not elicit any admission in support of his case. In other words, the evidence of these witnesses remained unshattered in the cross- 6 examination. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an admission by these witnesses that the school record for the year 1968-69 was missing is factually incorrect and deserves to be rejected outright since there is absolutely no material on record in support thereof. On facts, I do not find any reason to be interfere with the order passed by the tribunal and in any case the findings recorded by the tribunal cannot be stated to be perverse.
6. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in V.Krishna, supra. The Division Bench formulated the following two questions for determination :
"(i) whether the misconduct alleged against the workman producing fabricated document of the transfer certificate in answer to issue No.2 is legal and valid?
(ii) whether the finding of fact recorded on the contentious issue no.3 by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is based on the legal evidence on record and exercise of his power by him under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is legal and valid?7
7. In so far as the first question is concerned, in paragraph-18, after considering the material on record, the Division Bench observed that finding of the enquiry officer in his report that Ex.M3 is a fabricated document is not based on evidence of the said Headmaster. Since the correctness of the said finding was not under challenge the Division Bench did not go into that aspect any further. In so far as the second question is concerned, in the facts of that case, the Court has given benefit of the circulars issued by the Department to the petitioner therein. It is not in dispute, that the circulars are no more in operation. In the facts of this case in my opinion, the judgment in V. Krishna is of no avail to the petitioner.
8. That apart, a similar contention was raised relying upon the judgment in V. Krishna before the Division Bench in the writ appeal (W.A.No.390/2008). It was urged that the Corporation in that case (V. Krishna) had reinstated similarly placed employee and therefore, on parity, the employee in the appeal deserves to be reinstated. The Division Bench, however, dismissed the writ appeal recording the following reasons : 8
"3................ In the instant case, appellant was found guilty for producing fake school leaving certificate based on which respondent-corporation appointed as driver in the corporation. Though there was delay in completing the process of enquiry, the charge proved against the appellant is serious in nature. Appellant would not have been appointed by the respondent-corporation had he not produced false transfer certificate. Charge leveled and proved against the appellant is grave in nature, appellant produced certificate which is not issued by the concerned school thereby cheated the respondent-corporation to get employment by producing a false certificate. In that view of the matter though there was delay in concluding the enquiry, since charge leveled and proved against the appellant is serious in nature, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is just and proper and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
4. Appeal is therefore dismissed as there are no merits in this appeal."
9. I do not have slightest hesitation in holding that the T.C. certificate on the basis of which the petitioner secured 9 employment was bogus and fabricated document. It is well settled that securing employment on the basis of fake document is a serious misconduct. This also amounts to playing fraud on the employer which disentitles such an employee to claim any equitable relief. Once the charge which is of serious nature is held to be proved no indulgence whatsoever can be shown to such an employee and he does not deserve any leniency in punishment. If any leniency is shown to such an employee that would amount to putting a premium on a wrong doing. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ia